Resending. Did not make it to the archive.
All the best, Ashok
-----Original Message-----
From: Ashok Malhotra
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:33 PM
To: 'mary@cerisent.com'
Subject: RE: [F&O] CER-07 exactly-one et al
Mary:
Thanks for your comment. There has been a great deal of discussion over
these functions and there is a significant section of the WG that really
wants them. Unless you insist, I would rather not reopen this
discussion.
Is that OK?
All the best, Ashok
-----Original Message-----
From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mary Holstege
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 11:30 AM
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Subject: [F&O] CER-07 exactly-one et al
F&O 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3
The functions fn:zero-or-one, fn:one-or-more, and fn:exactly-one can
trivially
be written as user functions and provide little benefit. Given widely
useful
functions such as value-union that are not being provided, there seems
little
justification to require these functions. Suggest they be removed.